arXiv:2602. 18905v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, yet their decision-making processes remain difficult to interpret.
arXiv:2606. 06635v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Failures in language model reasoning emerge through distinct processes that leave identifiable signatures in the reasoning trace.
arXiv:2608. 08786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct.
The paper introduces DCFA, a training‑free framework for attributing failures in large language model‑based multi‑agent systems. DCFA uses a global module to build causal‑inspired dependency graphs from system traces, pinpointing the earliest decisive error, and a local module that refines this attribution through counterfactual reasoning. Experiments on the Who&When benchmark across six LLMs demonstrate that DCFA improves step‑level accuracy by up to 8.27% over existing baselines.
arXiv:2603. 05290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood.
arXiv:2608. 03291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process.
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
arXiv:2606. 16010v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models have achieved impressive performance on reasoning tasks spanning mathematics, science, programming, and commonsense inference.
arXiv:2605.28006v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding how LLMs reason is hindered by a practical asymmetry: while their generated outputs are observable, the underlying reasoning pa...
arXiv:2510. 27544v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current training paradigms, optimized for long-horizon reasoning trace execution, have made Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at pattern matching and forward simulation of reasoning, but underperform at counterfactual causal understanding and reasoning.
arXiv:2605. 23965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain.
The paper introduces a neuro‑symbolic framework for scientific reasoning that separates symbolic validity and semantic groundedness. A deterministic symbolic verifier acts as a hard filter to guarantee syntactic and arithmetic correctness, while a Process Reward Model (PRM) is trained on verifier‑accepted steps to assess contextual grounding. The authors propose Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP) to generate hard negative examples that pass the verifier but are logically flawed, enabling efficient PRM training and a verifier‑first constrained search at inference.
arXiv:2605. 19723v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems.